Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations cover safety (non-destructive, idempotent, not read-only) and the description adds meaningful domain context: what happens to leads when the switch is on or off, and the caveat about sending being gated by card approval unless manually overridden. It doesn't mention permissions or rate limits, but the behavioural picture is richer than the annotations alone.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single dense sentence with nested parentheticals that is harder to parse than it needs to be. It front-loads the subject correctly but could be split for clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a three-parameter toggle tool with no output schema, the description covers the behavioural semantics of both switch states and the role of the job parameter. It is nearly complete, though it leaves the 'on' parameter's semantics implicit and provides no usage routing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 67% with the 'job' parameter documented and 'form' documented. The description adds semantics for 'job' (it names which job works the leads) and implies 'on' toggles the behaviour. Only the 'on' parameter lacks a schema description and the description only implies its meaning indirectly.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific toggle (the form's «Tommo work» switch) and explains both states of the switch. It is distinguishable from siblings like switch_tommo_work_on_an_event and switch_a_tommo, but the description itself does not explicitly reference those alternatives — the agent must infer from the name alone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like switch_tommo_work_on_an_event or switch_a_tommo. The description explains what the switch means but not when an agent should flip it or which tool to choose.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.